Essential+Question+3

Throughout the semester, many of our readings, in-class discussions and written assignments emphasized the social identity that comes along with language and literacy. This class has taught me just how much of a sensitive subject language truly is. Indeed, a widespread consensus many of us grow up with is the idea that someone’s spoken – even written – language defines their social status, level of intelligence, and level of power. Thankfully, I am not a stickler for grammar with other people; I find it rude to correct, even judge, others for their grammar. However, as an English teacher, I often hold myself to a perhaps overly high standard in terms of grammar. This semester, at the same time I was taking this course, I was saddened by my cooperating teacher’s harsh attitude towards the students in her class whose language did not immediately reflect the secondary discourse into which she consistently attempted to apprentice them (the entry routine and Do-Now was intertwined with grammar on a daily basis). She even privately criticized me for being “too nice” to the students for not reprimanding our ELLs for their grammar mistakes and/or use of the vernacular, but rather gently redirecting them as we had learned in class. In spite of this, I do not regret my approach to the students in any way, for this would be ignorant of all I have learned in our course about social identity, power and language. As elaborated by Wheeler (2006), “as teachers understand more about the integrity of vernacular dialects and the structure and regularity of student language, they step away from dialectical prejudice in the classroom” (pg. 14).
 * How are social identity, power, and academic literacy related? **

As I found in my notes on the readings concerning dialects, the higher up the social class scale one goes, the less one encounters regional variation in speech. Such a supposed indication of social class also implies that those who do not demonstrate a particular dialect from a “high” social stature are less educated. However, such an implication is oversimplified; language cannot be directly related to education. Indeed, as I revisited in my class notes, distinctions between “languages” and “dialects” are usually made more on social and political grounds than on purely linguistic ones. Therefore, making an assumption about a student being uneducated based on his or her language and/or discourse is meaningless. Furthermore, there are only minor variations between “standard” and “nonstandard” English. It is essential for us to keep in mind as teachers, specifically when approaching our ELLs or students who frequently utilize the vernacular, that there are no single-style speakers; everyone is multicultural and/or multi-stylistic. (Delpit, 2002) As I looked back on my work for module 3, I revisited both the history of the “n” word and the controversy surrounding the incorporation of //The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn// into the classroom. The current status of the “n” word as a vulgar and derogatory term referring to African Americans relates social identity and power in a different sense. The “n” word itself negatively refers to the social and racial identity of African Americans; such a word holds extreme power in its ability to offend and isolate many people. This all relates to academic literacy when it appears in a book like //Huckleberry Finn//. Such a topic became one of utmost concern for me; shortly after I completed my work on module 3, I met with my cooperating teacher for next semester, who informed me that my tenth and eleventh grade students will begin reading //Huckleberry Finn// when they return from December break. As I asserted in a writing assignment from module 3, choosing not to teach the novel due to the appearance of the “n” word would give the word more power. Indeed, my new cooperating teacher and I are in the early stages of planning a series of lessons on the topic, which we will share with the class prior to starting the actual book. I will draw on the history of the “n” word I researched for module 3 to plan these lessons. This course has prepared me to have a conversation which will maintain sensitivity in exploring such a controversial issue, while simultaneously enlightening my students to the classic American novel that is //Huckleberry Finn//, and I am extremely grateful. References Delpit, L. (2002). //The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom //. New York: New Press.

Wheeler, R. S., & Swords, R. (2006). //Code-switching: Teaching standard English in urban classrooms//. Urbana, IL: NCTE.